Letters to the Editor
Harrington
Published Letters: 159 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Alex Tucker -
[Read the article: Matthew Dowd's not-so-miraculous conversion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lee Atwater didn't express true remorse either. What he did was to engage in a literal attempt to "get right with Jesus" once he knew death was upon him.
Whether Matthew Dowd's conversion is genuine or not only time will tell. If he really means it, I suspect that many of the questions that Mr. Blumenthal poses will be answered in time. But unless Mr. Dowd has a truly shocking revelation that provokes impeachment procedings, asking about the sincerity of his conversion misses the point. What we really should be asking Dowd is "what are you prepared to do about the problem you helped to create?"
As far as I'm concerned, he could go off to Africa and engage in "mission work" for the rest of his life and it wouldn't come close to balancing the scales for him. If he wants to make amends, about the only thing he can do is to help discredit this president by exposing him for the corrupt moral coward that he is.
-
Maybe I missed it....
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I didn't notice in your post that you put it to Schneider the way you stated it to us: (1) that Americans lack the trust that he assumes they have, and (2) the reason they lack that trust is because a full-on media campaign made up of lies attributed to anonymous sources is one of the reasons we're in Iraq right now.
Maybe you did have this conversation and you're reprting his responses without the specifics of your questions, but I would really be interested to hear someone - anyone - from the mainstream media comment on these two issues.
-
Imus and free speech
[Read the article: Bloggers, Don Imus and free speech]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You raise a couple of very good points but you also fumble around a bit in your comments today.
First, about free speech. You are, of course, correct to assert that free speech will survive the selective editing of blogs and the idiot ramblings of Don Imus. Simply put, free speech is absoute. (Well, for now, at least.) No one can tell Imus not to say what he wants to say. But commercial speech, or even expression within a controlled forum - individuals like me posting on a blog - is not. Taking Imus off the air or editing blog posts doesn't negate anyone's ability to think and say what they want, it just takes away their bullhorn.
So the issue here isn't free speech. The issue is what you hope to accomplish. To me, taking Imus off the air is a completely counter-productive step, because it gives him a platform to proclaim himself a victim. Better to keep him on the air in disgrace and watch as his famous guests abandon him, his ratings plunge and his show dies of it's own irrelevence.
As far as editing the comments that are posted here, I guess my point is similar. The idiots who spout hatred here do the most harm to themselves, not to the people they lash out at. Given this, I really believe that the most effective way of achieving your objectives is to shine more light on the problem, not less. So I wouldn't edit or delete posts, but I would insist that people identify themselves. If you did this, I think you'd find that the problem would likely become self-correcting.
-
PeteO, right on the money
[Read the article: Bloggers, Don Imus and free speech]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Free speech is something you either believe in or not. Racism, sexism, homophobia and other assorted categories of hatred are things you're either against or you're not. Trying to have it both ways is bull.
The problem is that allowing free speech means that we have to tolerate the fact that racist, sexist, homophobic and other assorted offensive rants are going to happen. Not tolerate to the extent that we condone it, but tolerate in the sense that freedom of speech means freedom for bigots too. Joan, like most people, seems willing to bend her commitment to free speech when the speech is something she finds to be delorable. I understand the instinct completely, I just don;t agree it's the right way to go.
Here's what I tried to say earlier. If Imus had edited himself or had been subject to editing, we wouldn't know what we know now. He'd continue to hobnob with Tim Russert, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Joe Biden, Howard Fineman, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Anna Quindlen and others who think he's just the neatest thing going. But because he was free to reveal his inner racist on the air, he's been humiliated and his powerful friends will be hesitant to align themselves with him in the future. (I can almost hear Russert tripping over McCain trying to run away.)
I'd like to think that most of us are smart enough to want to know the unvarnished truth and strong enough to withstand the crap that some people will throw out there.
Ultimately, in the end, isn't it better to know than not to know?